In a contempt petition under PIL No. 167 of 2014, the High Court of Bombay disposed of the matter as the petitioner was absent and the court treated the issue only as a matter of contempt, not suitable for substantive relief.
Petition disposed of without substantive consideration due to absence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
suresh
5-CP-475.2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.475 OF 2015 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.167 OF 2014
Prakash Ganpat Sawant .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others .... Respondents
Petitioner in-person Absent. Ms R.A. Salunkhe, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 7. Mr. Ramesh D. Rane for Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 8.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2019
P.C:
The petitioner, appearing in person, is absent. The contempt petition cannot be pursued as if it is a substantive matter in which further and additional relief can be granted. It is disposed of.
(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 1 of 1
Prakash Ganpat Sawant
The State of Maharashtra
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
R.I. CHAGLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
